Bible Study: Institutes of the church - Baptism
by The Righterzpen
Summary: A lot has "floated around" in Christian circles for centuries about Baptism. What is it? What does it mean? Why do it? Here is another Bible study I've done which gives some context and content to Baptism. As usual, questions, comments and reviews are welcome, but I promise I won't die without them.
1. Baptism: What it is

**Institutions of the Church**

* * *

 ** _Baptism_**

 ** _Baptism_** \- The word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "Baptizo". (Strong's /907) It is translated "Baptist" - (lx); "baptize(ed)" - (73x); and "wash" - (2x). There are other derivatives of this word (Strong's #'s 908, 909, 910, 911) which are also translated "baptism" - (22x - 908); "wash" - (3x - 909); "Baptist" - (14x - 910); and "dip" - (3x - 911).

There are two words associated with "baptize". One, (Baptizo) is the root word believed to come from a base word that means "to make overwhelmed" (with water). This is why many denominations practice immersing the whole individual in a source of water. I believe, that according to the language used in the Greek, this practice is more Scripturally sound than sprinkling the water on the participant.

The word (Bapto) is only used 3 times (Strong's # 91l) and seems to indicate that the substance or item that has already been "whelmed" in fluid emerges changed from it's original format. It gives the connotation of saturating something. There are three verses this word is used in. First is Luke 16:24, a finger "dipped" in water. The second is John 13:26, bread "dipped" in sop. The third is Rev 19:13, a vesture (garment) "dipped" in blood.

Now it is easy to see how bread in sop or a garment in blood could be changed from their original format, but a finger dipped in water does not change the finger. Only if you saturated the limb for a long period of time; yes, the appendage would eventually be changed, although not without first destroying the tissue. This is were this interpretation breaks down in one respect, since God would not be destroying the finger so it became useless; but instead, renewing it.

The passage in question is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. When we consider that Lazarus is a believer now in heaven (so to speak) this is where the analogy of being renewed or changed does fit the context of the word "Bapto". Lazarus's hands are changed since they have been saturated (or stained) by the living water of the word of God.

 ** _Baptism of Repentance_**

In the Gospels and the Epistles there are three types of "baptisms" concerning the human body that are discussed. One is called the "baptism of John" which was a "baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4, Acts 13:24, Acts 18:25, Acts 19:4) This baptism was only to "tell the people that they should believe on him who should come after John, that is Christ." Acts 19:4.

Immediately after Jesus was baptized, He was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness.

(Mk 1:12) There is no record that John baptized anyone else after Jesus. Matter of fact, Luke 3:21 states "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized... ". Practically speaking, this was probably because they were coming to arrest John for he was thrown in jail shortly there after. (Jesus being driven into the wilderness immediately after being baptized since Ho was the last one baptized and would not be there when they came to arrest John.) We know this because when Jesus returned from the 40 days in the wilderness, He heard that John was in prison. (Matt 4:12, Mk 1:14)

Now in the Hebrew Scripture several people and entities had their heads cut off as was also done to John the Baptist. This was a sign of judgment.

 ** _First_** \- The statue Dagon (a Philistine god) who the ark of the covenant had been placed next to in a temple in the province of Ashdod. It was found the second day with it's head and hands severed from the body of the statue. (1 Sam 5:4)

 ** _Second_** \- Goliath; his head was severed from the body when David killed him.

(1 Sam 17:51)

 ** _Third -_** King Saul; his head was cut off by the Philistines when he was killed in Mt. Gilboa. (1 Sam 31:9)

 ** _Forth_** \- Ishbosheth; he was a son of Saul who was sent to rule over Israel after Saul's death before David became King. His head was brought to David by the sons of Rechab.

(2 Sam 4:8)

 ** _Fifth -_** Sheba, the son of Bichri who'd tried to kill King David. His head was thrown to Joab by the women of Abel of Bethmaachah They were instructed to cut off his head by one of the elder women "who was wise" in their city. (2 Sam 20:22)

 ** _Sixth_** \- In Isaiah 9:14 it says "Therefore the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush in one day. The ancient and honorable, he is the head; and the prophet that teaches lies, he is the tail..." John the baptist was the physical allegory of this truth. Christ (ancient and honorable) would be cut off from the body (national Israel) so he could be joined to a new body (believers).

 ** _Baptism of the Holy Spirit_**

One of the controversial "baptisms" discussed in the Scripture is to be baptized in the Spirit of God. It has become an issue today because of the modern tongues movement. Some claim that being "baptized in the Spirit" means that you start "speaking in tongues" performing "healings", "prophesying" and other "miraculous" events, but I don't find this interpretation Biblical.

First of all, the presence of events that go contrary to the natural laws of physics, biology and/or any other common workings of the universe are what the Scripture considers miracles. These events occurred in coordination with the ministries of Jesus and the apostles; (as well as prophets of the Hebrew Scripture) up through the first century and before the canon of Scripture was completed. Once God had established that these were the people He had sent (and the writing of the scripture was complete) these miracles came to an end.

Secondly, the modern tongues movement is not what occurred in the first century. The Scripture declares that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established. (Deut 19:15, Matt 18:16, 2 Cor l 3:1) All happenings in the Scripture are repeated at least twice. This is the mouth of the two or three witnesses which all things are established. Those who believe in the validity of the modern tongues movement site verses in I Cor 14 to support their argument, but in order to understand what was occurring in the Corinthian church we must have a second witness some where in the Bible that records the same phenomenon. That second witness is the book of Acts and it is very clear in Acts, that the tongues they were speaking were indeed earthly languages of other nations which they had not been trained to speak. This was a sign that the gospel was going into all the world.

The third point I would like to make in regards to "speaking in tongues" comes right out of the passage in 1 Cot 14:21-25. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, says the Lord." This verse in Corinthians comes out of Deuteronomy 28:49. This had a historical reference also, when Israel was taken into captivity in Babylon. Ezekiel 23 tells us why they were taken into captivity. They courted the heathen nations to obtain power and favor. They lusted after the wealth and beauty of these earthly kingdoms and became enslaved to them.

Now, how does this relate to "speaking in tongues"? Just as ancient Israel believed God was showing favor to these other nations by allowing them to obtain all this power and wealth, there are those who are looking for some special "sign" to know God is working in a certain church or leader. Jesus told the leaders of Israel that a wicked and adulterous generation seek after a sign and the only sign they will get is "the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt 12:40

1 Cor 14:22 does tell us that tongues are for a sign - "not to them who believe but to those who don't believe" although it's not a sign of God's favor. Those who don't believe were defined earlier as being the Jewish nation. "For the Jews seek a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom." (1 Cor 1:22). The Jews are the only people spoken of in the letters who seek some sort of proof from God as to the validity of the Apostles' office. So consequently, speaking the gospel in foreign languages was telling national Israel that their "birthright" in the Kingdom had been taken from them and given to another nation; "one who's language they did not understand."

Is there an application to this today, concerning churches who practice the modern tongues movement? There may be? Since we know by the context of the books of Corinthians, Acts and Matthew who that "wicked and adulterous generation" was, as well as what tongues really consisted of- we know (at the very least) that what is going on in these churches is a lie. Some would conclude that this is some supernatural working of Satan, although personally I'm not convinced that Satan has the power (or has been given the power) to break the barrier between the natural and supernatural world. So no, I don't consider these "manifestations" miraculous in any sense of the word. Do I believe they are the workings of Satan? To this question I would have to answer yes, considering Satan is the "father of lies" and often disguises himself as an "angel of light".

So now with this established; what exactly is the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Acts 1:5 answers this question. Jesus had instructed the believers to wait in Jerusalem until the Father had sent the Spirit to them. Verse 5 declares this was a "baptism" with the Holy Ghost. Also in verse 8; "But you shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth." This is repeated in Acts 11:16

The Holy Spirit is not confined to people who have first only been baptized in water. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47)

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done; (for example - water baptism) but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost..."

(Titus 3:4&5)

"And such were some of you, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:11)

 ** _Baptism in water_**

The third Baptism was to "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." This was first instituted in the Gospels right after the resurrection by Jesus. He tells the disciples to go "and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt 28:19

Acts 22:16 Talks about Paul being baptized. "And now why do you wait? arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." If you look at the language you'll notice "washing away your sins" is linked to "calling on the name of the Lord." not "arise and be baptized". The two phrases are joined by an "and", so it's not the baptism that washes away the sin, it's the calling on the name.

Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned." In this passage "shall be saved" is contingent on "believing and being baptized". Now this passage does not specify what type of baptism is required for salvation. We can not presume it is water baptism, since the thief on the cross had never been water baptized; but had been redeemed for Jesus said to him "this day you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). The baptism in question here is baptism in the Holy Spirit. This makes perfect sense when we consider no-one can be saved without the Spirit of God.

John 3:5&6 "Truly, I say to you: Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God." Now looking at this passage, what does it mean to be "born of water" in order to enter the kingdom of God? Is this talking about water baptism? Notice the passage says "born of water" not "baptized" of water. What is this verse referring to?

Some have come to the conclusion that being "born of water" is a reference to physical birth and the "water" is amniotic fluid. It is a correct assumption that you must be a physically living human being to be redeemed, since if a person dies with out salvation their fate is forever sealed; (although it was already forever sealed in eternity - but that is another theological topic). Yet, I don't think this is what Jesus is referring to when he makes this statement. The "water" you must be born of is the living water Jesus talks about in John 4:12 "But who ever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; but the water that I will give him will be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." Also in Revelation 21:6 it says "I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely." Psalm 36:8&9 talks of the "river of (God's) pleasures" and "the fountain of life". I think both of these are a reference to Jesus and His willingness to pay for sin, for He is our "life" as well as the "pleasure" of His Father.

Finally in 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism is pretty well summed up for us in that it is a "Like figure [allegory, parable] where as even baptism does also now save us: (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [being washed with water] but the answer of a good conscience toward God [baptism of the Spirit]) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

So if water baptism does not impart any grace to us than what is it for? Why do it? For part of that answer we need to go to 1 Cor 10:2 where it talks about how national Israel was "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.." Of this "they ate the same spiritual meat" and "drank the same spiritual drink .. they drank of the spiritual rock...that rock was Christ" God used them as an example in which He cared for them and guided them on their long journey. (vs 11)

It is the mercy of God that provides His goodness even to the those who will ultimately perish for their sin. (Matt 5:45) God shows this grace so that His purpose (salvation of His people) may be accomplished. (Romans 8:28) They were baptized into Moses and given the law which, although it couldn't save them; it still was mercy because the law is the schoolmaster that points us to Christ. (Galations 3:24) That is how they "drank of the rock..that was Christ" and received mercy from God even though most of them perished in the wilderness because of their unbelief. (Hebrews 3:17&18) So "baptism" in this respect declares how we are "overwhelmed" even in our unregenerate state by the goodness of God. Yet, if we are looking for the full answer to this we must look further than common grace to a specific type of grace.

Matt 20:22, Mk 10:38, Lk 12:50 These three passages make mention of Jesus and the "baptism in which I am baptized with" In Luke it says "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!" Notice that this baptism Jesus is talking about has nothing to do with being baptized in water; for that has already happened (Jesus being baptized by John) and these passages are in the present and future tenses. It is not very clear when exactly these two statements in Matt and Mark are made other than we know it was before the entry into Jerusalem. Either way, it begs the question - what baptism is Jesus talking about here? We find the answer in the book of Romans.

Romans 6:2-4 "...How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer in it? Don't you know that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death; that like Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father; even so, we also should walk in newness of life." One of the results of being "baptized by the Spirit of God" is that we've been cleansed from our sin. We walk in newness of life because the power of God has buried our old self through substitutionary atonement and has raised us to be free from dead works. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ (into His death) have put on Christ." (Gal 3:27) When the sin that still remains with in us causes us to run a muck, the Spirit of God still prevails because He is stronger than anything in this universe. Even in our unfaithfulness, He can not deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:13)

Now to sum all this up, God tells us - "For as the body is one, ...so also is Christ; For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we be slaves or free men; we have all been made to drink into the same Spirit." (1 Cot 12:13)

 ** _In Conclusion-_**

Well, I don't think it's really necessary to say much more since the scripture pretty well speaks for it's-self. We know baptism does not save us and is only a picture of how the Spirit of God washes us from our sin. The only last question we might ask is who is to be baptized. Should we baptize only people who have made a profession of faith, or should we baptized babies too? What about the method? Does a person need to be totally immersed? What about the water? Do we need special water too?

Some of these questions I think need to be applied individually to specific situations. It may not be practical or even possible to totally immerse a quadriplegic in a river or swimming pool. Also, there are people who are afraid of water and immersion may cause them undue trauma. Some times the circumstances (a prison or concentration camp) do not allow for an adequate water supply to immerse a person. In cases like this I think it would be acceptable in the sight of God to sprinkle those individuals if that is their preference (or all that's available) for baptism. God is looking on the person's heart and sees what they really desire in this whole process. He knows the infirmity of our flesh (or our circumstances) and is understanding.

As far as the type of water, it is quite clear in the scripture that there was nothing special about the water it's-self. Any source of water would do. It didn't matter if it was a pond, river, well or even run off from a mountain side. People were baptized with all sorts of water from a variety of locations and no-where does it say that water needs to be blessed by any human agent.

People of all ages, races, nationalities and levels of education and intelligence were baptized. Do you baptize babies or people who don't have the intellectual or verbal capacity to consent to baptism. If anyone thinks that these individuals have in some way indicated that they believe in Christ, even if they don't really grasp baptism; I would say it is good in the sight of God to baptize them. If Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother) came to me and told me what he had done upon hearing about Jesus; I would have no problem baptizing him, even if he was only a baby. Do we baptize babies because we believe that will some how protect or save them. If that is our motivation, I would say no; since we know baptism does not equate to salvation. If we fail to baptize a person who really is a believer and has not been able to tell us this; we need not worry because our lack of knowledge will not prevent them from entering the Kingdom.


	2. Infant baptism and the Philipian Jailer

_Here's another "study tidbit" I found while "cleaning" my hard drive. I'm putting it in with this Baptism study because it does address the issue of sorts. Personally though too, I find this one interesting because of the historical information that supports the hypothesis of who was in the Jailer's household._

 _Again, maybe bit of a disclaimer is in order. The Bible is in the public domain and the study is something I've done myself. Needless to say, it has been brought to my attention on more than one occasion, that there are people who do not consider Bible studies as such; "fan fiction". In the most technical sense, I suppose they could be right; but I've also noticed there is a lot of stuff on this site that I wouldn't consider "fan fiction" either. Regardless, nothing I've written violates the terms of service, nor does it violate the publication guidelines. All the assembly of the ideas the way they are presented are my own. All ideas I've presented that come out of church history, or are borrowed from other fields of study are in the public domain.  
_

 _So for those who find this kind of stuff interesting - Enjoy._

 _May it be used to grow your faith._

* * *

 **Infant Baptism?**

Acts 16:25-34

(The Philippine Jailer)

 _ **Introduction:**_

In this study I will be dealing with the question of infant baptism as related to the passage in Acts that deals with the Philippine jailer. The reason I entitled this portion of this study as so, is because I want to cover a little historical back ground info as to the probability of who the Philippine Jailer was, his age, status in life and who the members of his family probably consisted of. Based on the text, I don't believe this man had small children (or even a wife) in his household; (which I'll explain why I came to that conclusion later in the study). The issue of infant baptism comes up in this passage on account of this man's entire household having been baptized all at once. I'm of the conviction that the reason they were all baptized is because they all believed and as I hope the reader will see; their believing can be proven in the text.

 _ **Historical / Cultural backdrop:**_

Now before I get into the text it's-self, I want to cover a little info about Roman history and who (and why) I suspect this jailer was an older man. It's likely he was probably at least in his 40's; in which I will explain my assumption based on what I know of Roman military life.

First of all; this jailer would have been in the Roman army. These types of posts (guarding jails and the such like) were common of older military men; since the younger ones were sent off to fight. The army, was the only organization in the empire that would have been trained for such a duty. The leadership of Rome trusted only citizens to the functioning tasks of the empire; and the only people who were citizens were the military and the aristocracy. Now since anyone born of "good blood" would have never taken the position of guarding a prison - the only option left would have been to a soldier and a well respected solider at that.

The structure and presences of the Roman army was far different than our modern day military. The modern American armed forces are used primarily for foreign armed conflicts. Only in cases of martial law can the military be used as a police force. In Rome though, that was not the case. Besides fighting wars; the Roman army served as a labor force to erect public buildings and build roads; as well as being a police force.

Any 16 year old male could join the Roman army - including slaves with permission of their masters. Once you swore your oath and completed your training, you were bound to active duty until you either died, were killed, or turned 65 years old. The army was an attractive option for many people, because it was the only way someone not born of wealth could earn their citizenship. All Roman military personal could become citizens of the empire; which automatically gave slaves their freedom and all citizens had the right to vote.

Another indicator that this jailer was in the military can be seen in his willingness to kill himself if his prisoners had escaped. The Roman army was very disciplined and very well trained. Self control was of the utmost importance and just like today, the better disciplined you were; the better soldier you made. Some of the most highly trained and well disciplined men, were those involved in punishing and executing criminals. If you were a "flogger" and killed someone you were just suppose to "chastise" - you were put to death! If you were an executioner and failed (using "reasonable" means) to put someone to death; you were put to death.

On account of the fact that a lot of "weird" things were happening in first century Palestine; and that the Romans were "superstitious" people, the jailer would probably have been safe. In circumstances beyond reasonable control; (the quake at this prison) the jailer probably stood about a 50/50 chance of being executed. This would have been true for several reasons; which I'll explain in a minute.

Now why might he have killed himself? I'm not really sure, but there could have been several reasons. Fearing execution, he may have just panicked? He may have seen it as a more honorable alternative to the shame of having his prisoners escape? (This would be my first choice of reasons.) He may have feared God / or his god - being mad at him? Who knows; but on account of the events taking place in the area at that time - he probably stood a good chance of surviving. After all, there were miraculous events happening all over the area and this was shaking everyone up; not just the Romans.

For example - the soldiers who guarded Jesus's tomb. The fact that these soldiers were still alive; is (in and of it's-self) one testimony to the reality of the resurrection. Not only had they supposedly fallen asleep on their watch; (which would have gotten them flogged) but a crime had supposedly taken place while they were sleeping; (which would have gotten them executed).

Rome was a polytheistic society and they would have seen this quake as an act of God (or the act of someone's god). The Roman mind set was not to offend anyone's god; for fear of bringing down the empire. The Romans believed that because they were so careful in how they dealt with all these different deities; this was why they were so powerful. That belief changed in later centuries; but in the first century, it was still very prevalent. We see this in Pontius Pilate; when Jesus says he's the son of God. This scares Pilate. (Jn 19:8) In the Roman empire it was not considered a crime to declare yourself to be Divine, although it was a crime to declare yourself as a king.

 _ **The Roman Military Family:**_

Now taking this all into account; who would have been the "the most likely candidates" to be in this jailer's household? One thing a lot of people assume when looking at this passage is that "household" means our conventional idea of family; wife, kids, maybe parents; but of Roman military life - their concept of "household" or "family" was very different.

First of all, technically it was "illegal" for soldiers to get married. Men did of course maintain wives and families; many of them having more than one "wife" and several children. This of course depended upon the soldier's own moral and value system as to how many "wives" he chose to maintain. Most soldiers though, because of cultural confines and the fact that they were to pay for their own weaponry and uniforms out of their wages; only maintained one "official" wife. This "marriage law" although it was technically part of the oath; it wasn't really enforced unless it became an issue.

Many soldier's "marriages" only lasted as long as they were in a certain area. Fortunately though, many "domestic duty stations" were "long term". How long you stayed in an area depended on how well you did the job. Like today's military though, you couldn't be advanced in rank and earn more money (and respect) unless you saw combat; so thus, soldiers generally wanted to be moved around..

Soldiers would leave their wives in certain locations; (probably usually with the wife's family) and when they'd earned some extra money, they'd purchase jewelry for these women. Because the empire had a wide variety of currencies; jewelry was a very practical way for soldiers to be able to support their families. Unlike the modern American military; families usually could not go with the soldiers. There was one exception to this "rule" though which was unearthed in several archeological digs in the mountains of middle Europe. Since Legions didn't get rotated around too often, ones who stayed encamped in wilderness areas were permitted to take their families with them. This was very similar to the "camp follower" idea we see in militaries of the colonial era and since colonial armies were modeled off Rome's, this does make sense. Families lived in encampments "attached" to the army and would also be brought inside the military fortification in the case of a siege. Another interesting thing these archeological digs uncovered, is that obviously the Romans also equipped their women and children to be able to defend themselves in case of an attack; as smaller shields and lighter weapons have also been unearthed in these dig sites. And just like with colonial military records, we do find some records of female combatants who are actually in the army. They draw pay and what would be an equivalent of a pension. For soldiers who remained in the greater area of the empire though, they maintained a household in town, even when the "military base" was some distance from where the family lived. Usually the wife would stay in the geographical proximity of her family, so when the solider had the opportunity; he'd "go home" on leave. If they had children, the female children stayed with the mother and when the male children reached 16; often times they would join the army. After they'd become full fledged soldiers themselves; they could travel with their fathers. This is how family units were maintained.

In the case of this jailer, he'd obviously earned enough respect and rank to have gotten the job to begin with. He probably would have been a long term resident of Philippi. The goal was to get a lot of "kudos" when you were young, to earn a good duty station later. Than you could live out the rest of your life in relative safety, until you were old enough to retire.

Another common practice in Roman military life was to "adopt" the men who served under you. Battalions served as microcosms of the army structure it's-self. They consisted of artillery units, calvary units and foot soldiers. Each battalion had it's own hospital and the men rotated camp maintenance duty and watches. When you were assigned a battalion; that was usually your battalion for the rest of your life.

Often times when units would be relocated; Centurions would be moved with all of their men; as opposed to individuals being sent to a new command. Instead of trying to keep track of who had been where; the Romans rotated their troops by rotating battalions. The only time the army "broke battalions" was if there was mass dissension in the ranks, or if that battalion lost a great deal of men in a conflict and was suffering particularly low moral. That was not a very common occurrence though. The few times it did happen; they took two decimated battalions; broke a very successful battalion and combined the 3 into two stronger units. This moral tactic was usually quite effective.

 _ **The Jailer:**_

Often times "families" or "households" in relation to military people, were much broader of a definition than we generally think of. Wives and children were not maintained on "military property"; since the military saw soldiers families as the sole responsibility of the soldier. We see this in Matt 27:19 where Pilate's wife "sends unto him..." a message concerning the dreams she's had about Jesus. She sends a message to him and doesn't show up herself because apparently she is of some distance from his location. She probably lived within the walls of Jerusalem; although would not have been in the Antonia fortification with the military people.

So based on what I know of Roman military life, I'm not of the opinion that the household of the jailer that was maintained within the walls of this prison, contained a wife and small children. If we stick with what we know of Roman military culture; his "household" would have consisted of servants and adult sons (or "soldier sons" - if he had "adopted" any men).

Now based on the text of what I read in Acts; it's quite apparent that the house this jailer lived in, resided on the prison property. Paul and Silas enter the prison in verse 24 of Acts 16 and don't leave the prison until verse 40, where they go to Lydia's house. Now was the Philippine jailer married to Lydia? I suppose that's possible, but I doubt that was the case. My guess is that the jailer, in all likelihood - at one time had a wife; who at this point is probably deceased. I make this assumption because if he'd had a wife who was still living (and in the area); he would have been living with her out in the community.

 _ **Luke 1:1-3 and the Philippine Jailer:**_

Let's just say for arguments sake that the jailor did have a wife and kids that lived on the prison grounds. We'll just throw out all we know about Roman customs and culture and make and assumption here. If this were the case? How old were these people? Can we gather any clues by the text?

Before we look directly at Acts - let's back up a minute to the beginning of Luke. Now Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. The reason he gives for why he's recording these things is so that Theophilus; who he's writing too - can see these things in order. Verse one says that he (Luke) is "setting forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." Although this "order" he's setting forth in verse one is an order of ideas; verse three states that the other "order" he's setting forth is of a chronological one.

So both Luke and Acts are set forth as an ordering of ideas presented, in a chronological time line. This may not seem like it is of much significance; but keeping this in mind will help order the events when we get to the book of Acts. The persons of the jailer's household who are baptized are done so before the jailer brings Paul and Silas into his house to feed them. Is that of any importance - Maybe - Maybe not.

 _ **Acts 16:25-34**_

Vs 25 Paul and Silas praying and praised in a hymn God; listened and to them the prisoners

Vs 26 Suddenly and an earthquake was great, so as to be shaken the foundations of the jail.

Were opened and immediately the doors all, and of all the bonds were loosed..

Vs 27 Awake and became the jailer and seeing having been opened the doors of the prison, having drawn a sword, was about himself to do away, supposing to have escaped the prisoners.

Vs 28 Called but with a voice great Paul saying, nothing do (to) yourself harm, all for we are here.

Vs 29 Asking and lights, he rushed in, and trembling becoming, he fell before Paul and Silas.

Vs 30 And having led them outside said, Sirs, what me must do that I may be saved?

Vs 31 They and said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and the house of you.

Vs 32 And they spoke to him the word of the Lord and all those in the house of him.

Vs 33 And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from the stripes and was baptized; he and those of him all at once.

Vs 34 Bringing up and them to the house, he set before (them) a table, and exalted with all the house, having believed God.

Now here are all the verses as they appear in the "received text". The sentences look funny because they are translated word for word out of the Greek. The verses below also contain the grammatical sentence structures and inflections of the Greek.

 **Vs 31** " **They and said,** _ **(commence)**_ **Believe** _ **(from this point forward)**_ **on the Lord Jesus Christ and** _ **(in addition to)**_ **(you) will be saved)** _ **(at some particular point in the future)**_ **, you** _ **(specifically)**_ **and** _ **(in addition too)**_ **the house of you.** _ **(those who you dwell with)**_

Here is where knowing that Luke wrote these verses in the chronological order in which they occurred; tells us what really happened. We know that the "time Paul and Silas spoke" to the jailer and "all that were in the place of his residence" occurred before the jailer washed their stripes and he and "all those of him all at once" are baptized.

I suppose there are a couple of ways we can take this verse. (We'll get to the washing the stripes in a minute.) We have the jailer being told that if he believes, he shall be saved - he (specifically) and / along with / in addition too "those who you dwell with". Now to me, it looks like there are already those whom he "dwells with" - who believe already.

 **Vs 32 "And they spake** _ **(one time event, not specifying relative time of action to time of speaking)**_ **to him the word of the Lord and all those in the house of him.** _ **(place of residence)**_

The next verse says Paul and Silas speak the word of the Lord to him and to all those who reside at his place of residence. That looks kind of strange because aren't those who "reside at his place of residence" also "those who he dwells with"? When we look at the context of where this man lives though; it makes more sense.

Now we know this man lives on the prison grounds. Does this mean that all of those who also "live on the prison grounds" had been preached to by Paul and Silas? Are these people guards, other prisoners? After all, they all "live" on the prison grounds. Could that be what they are talking about? Possible, but I don't think so - because if that were the case the verse would say something like: "They spake to all in the prison..." So now who were "all those of his place of residence" that Paul and Silas had spoken too? My conclusion is that they would be all who lived in the warden house with him, as well as servants of him who tended to his household but did not live in the house with him.

 **Vs 33 And taking** _ **(a simple action, does not in it's-self indicate time of action, but when in temporal relation to the main verb - it usually signifies and action prior to that of the main verb)**_ **them in that hour of the night, he washed** _ **(one time event, not specifying relative time of action to time of speaking)**_ **from the stripes and was baptized** _**(one time event, not specifying relative time of action to time of speaking)**_ **; he** _ **(being the emphasis of the verbs - taking, wash, baptize)**_ **and those of him all at once.**

Here is an interesting verse that says a lot about the state of this man's heart after hearing the words Paul and Silas spoke to him. This jailer of his own initiative takes Paul and Silas and personally tends to their wounds. He didn't send a servant to do it; he did it himself! The focus of the verbs are on him. He "took", he "washed", he was "baptized". Even though others "of him" were baptized at the same time he was; the focus of the verb was still on him. He was the one who had the conversion experience and he was the one who believed. Now of course, this doesn't negate the fact that it appears by the context and the remainder of the text that there were others of his "family" (regardless of how any of us interpret who his family was) who's belief preceded his own.

Vs 34 **Bringing up** _ **(a simple action, does not in it's-self indicate time of action, but when in temporal relation to the main verb - it usually signifies and action prior to that of the main verb)**_ **and them to the house** _**(those who you dwell with)**_ **, he set** _ **(one time event, not specifying relative time of action to time of speaking)**_ **before (them) a table, and exalted (** _ **punctiliar action performed by the subjects on behalf of their own accord, but does not signify the time of that action)**_ **with all the house, having believed** _ **(stresses the state brought about by the finished results of the action)**_ **God.**

Now finally the last verse in this segment; which deals with this jailor and "those of his house" It says that he brought Paul and Silas to "those whom he dwelt with" and set a table for them. The next portion of the verse says "and exalted with all the house". The Greek has it rendered exactly as that. It's all one continuous phrase. The jailor and the household rejoiced. Exalted here means to "leap for joy". It is middle voice; meaning that they all of their own self determination "leapt for joy". The members of the household weren't "leaping for joy" because the jailor was "leaping for joy". They were doing so on account of their own volition. They were happy inside; thus the reaction.

The next phrase "having believed God indicates that the end result of all these actions (all the events that had occurred) was that everyone in his house - believed. Now this last word "house" is very intriguing because it's a combination of the word "place of residence" and "the whole of". To me that seems to indicate that not only did all who dwelt with the jailer believe; but so did all who lived on his property. This word is also interesting too because the people of this "place of residence" had all become this man's "family".

Next we come to verse 35, which "sews it up" in a rather remarkable way. The verse opens with "And when it was day..." Now since we know Luke wrote all this in chronological order; we know that all these preceding events happened between midnight and daybreak! This whole household had come to believe.

 **In Summery:**

So now, what does this passage tell us? Does it confirm or deny the notion of infant baptism; or does it really not say anything on the matter? We've learned three things from this passage.

1\. Paul and Silas never left the confines of the prison, so we know the jailer lived on the grounds.

2\. Everyone in his household was baptized.

3\. Everyone rejoiced and believed.

What else do we know about the events recorded here?

1\. Paul and Silas spoke to the jailer and "all those that resided on his property"

2\. They did so before their wounds where cleaned.

3\. The jailer cleaned up Paul and Silas

4\. "All those of him" were baptized together.

5\. The jailer brought Paul and Silas to the warden house and fed them.

6\. The entire lot of those who resided on the jailer's property rejoiced and believed.

 _ **Old to New Testaments:**_

Now I suppose in some respects this passage does not say anything about babies being baptized. At least on the surface it doesn't. It is clear though from the passage that Paul and Silas "spoke the words of the Lord" to all those who resided on the jailer's property. I'd covered earlier the probability that those who lived on his property were not necessarily those who lived in the warden house with him; yet would have included them also. Paul and Silas carrying on a conversation with all these people, lends to the conclusion that the participants were at least cognitively lucid enough to have participated in this discourse to begin with.

Thus regardless of presumed ages; everyone bore the capacity (humanly speaking) to understand the conversation and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not they believed what was being told to them. That in and of it's-self would exclude pre-verbal children: not in God's capacity to rebirth someone who lacks language skills; that can and does happen. The context of this passage though has a group of people responding to what had been explained to them. Their ability to respond to the explanation, I think inadvertently tells us something about their ages.

The last issue that raises a mess of other issues; is the presumed notion that the jailer made the choice for all these others to be baptized. That really makes no sense at all and can not be supported by the remainder of Scripture that speak of baptism. This is true regardless of what the customs of ancient Rome may have been; the notion of human beings being the property of some other. Even if the jailer demanded of his family to be baptized; I don't think Paul and Silas would have done it. For I'm sure they would have explained that nowhere in Scripture are human agents required by God to make grace compulsory upon the unwilling. The law is certainly requisite upon the unwilling; yet grace and truth came through Jesus Christ - baptism being a testimony of that which is obtained through him.

I realize the theological arguments for infant baptism come from a linking of the old and new testaments. We run into a lot of problems though when we try to carry over tenants of one covenant's ceremonies to the other covenant's ceremonies. Because the law was compulsory (in it's condemnation of sinners) it's application across society was universal. Thus all males were circumcised and all members of the family participated in the Passover. Strangely though, a discrepancy arises in the carry over. All members of the family are baptized, yet not all are allowed to participate in communion.

As for grace though, and the fact that it's application is very specific; the ceremonies set up to testify of it should only be confined to those who profess belief. What Jesus did was not the same as what the law does. The law condemned all; Christ redeemed some. In regards to the ceremonies of the law and grace though; we must keep in mind that all of them point to Christ."Low _**I**_ (being Christ) come in the volume of the book..." Circumcision was "written of" Christ and baptism was "written of" Christ. Circumcision wasn't "written of" baptism. Circumcision and Baptism are bookends of the same subject matter. What's between them is the testimony of what Jesus did.

 _ **Covenant Theology:**_

Now, I can't leave this study "as is" without making some mention of what's commonly called in church traditions that come out of the Reformation; "covenant theology". It is often quoted in reformed circles "I will be a God to you and your children." in regards to baptizing infants. I know the practice of baptizing infants is also done in the Roman Catholic Church; who's reasons for such are different than protestant churches. I'm also aware that a lot of protestant churches will do what's called a "baby dedication", where with the parents and the church family take vows to aid in the growth of this child's faith before God.

I've since come to the conclusion that whether an infant is "dedicated" or "baptized"; if the parents / church has done so in good faith, not believing this is somehow going to save or protect the infant; than they have not committed any sin worthy of creating a division over. Just as it is with communion, I think it's a greater sin to prevent a rightful baptism than to commit a wrongful one. This is not a foundational issue of doctrine as related to redemption. So, what's committed or omitted for lack of our understanding, is still covered in grace.

I first did this study, probably about 5 or more years ago and though I still pretty much stand on the conviction of "believer's baptism", I have a better grasp now of the other view point. Covenant theologians (and lay people) baptize infants because they see them as part of the covenant, that involves the entire family.

I think they are correct in the basic premises. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"; and it certainly is not by "mistake" that a higher percent of God's elect are born to God's elect. I honestly don't know if that has anything to do with any "carry over covenantal idea" that originated in the Old Testament, or whether it's more a function of "God's convenience" of using households where the gospel is already being proclaimed anyways? At least in the most basic sense, we can say that God is merciful to us and our children; and solely because He is a God of mercy, has He "designed the Plan" this way.

I will say though that yes, I am a firm believer in the saying that "God has no grandchildren"; yet the practical "spilling out" of how things unfold in who becomes regenerated is unmistakable. A higher percentage of Christians come from Christian families than come from non-Christian families. Of course this does not mean that every child of every Christian will become a Christian. How God has "meted that out" from before the foundations of the world, is not only beyond my understanding; it's beyond my "need to know".

Having a child though that I see growing in grace, understanding of truth and holding fast to faith and convictions that he's come to outside of my "making him" has been a real blessing I thank God for every day.


End file.
